TSiWRX

^ +1. Breadth of knowledge is just as important as depth of knowledge. There are a lot of really good trainers/schools out there. But none of them know it all or have it all, and even if/when they do, they're still not immune to the dangers of stagnation/institutional inertia. Even for well-experienced shooters who attend schools that are very high up on the food chain or study under instructors who are world renown, it's still a good idea to step outside one's comfort zone and get out there to see what the rest of the world has to offer.

^ The posts above by rodan, Norm Peterson, and BDII - are big. These days, the need to properly vet one's instructor/cadre/school is absolutely vital. As rodan noted, there's a lot of shady characters out there, and sub-par instruction aside, with this sport/hobby/activity, there's quite a bit of inherent danger that should not be taken for-granted. With that in mind and what you've written above, Knight705, can I ask who you've studied with - in hopes of determining if that's perhaps one of the problems? And as for YouTube and other similar resources - be it free or paid for - the problem is a lack of proper oversight. As BDII and Norm Peterson noted, the lack of feedback from these one-way resources is perhaps their biggest failing, and self-diagnosis is difficult at best, even for very experienced and capable shooters. Self-practice is always necessary. Going to these training classes is not a viable substitute for honest self-guided practice. Instead, these classes are so that you discover where your shortcomings are and how to remediate them, as well as is a chance to put into use those skills which you have mastered, and also is a way to be exposed to newer methodology and doctrine updates/corrections.

I love that shoe-print with the light spot just beyond it. Someone got a body-full.

I know, right? I actually lament the fact that I could probably have bought a pretty good reloading setup (or upgraded one), with the difference..... The problem for me is two-fold. The first one I can get around pretty easy by not casting my own bullets (i.e. lead), but the second one would probably drive my wife to divorce me. I'm a basic-science researcher by training and trade, so I can get pretty obsessive about things, and I totally see this side of the hobby as feeding into that obsession. I'll most likely start reloading once Anna goes off to school.

Ah, bruddah, that makes a huge difference. I wish I could get into reloading, now. +1. Getting better with a wheel-gun is next on my list.

^ I agree, and I also think that's a problem for a lot of us who don't really "collect." In the end, we just have a bunch of what's rather common guns that aren't really at-all deserving of safe-queen status, yet add to our maintenance and logistics. What I will say, though, even as someone who has only been in this hobby/sport for a -very- short time, is that the last craze taught me that there truly is real-world value to diversifying. When 9x19 and .45 ACP flew off the shelves, .38-Special/.357 Magnum and even .357 SIG hung on for quite longer and resisted the instantaneous price-hikes, while the .40 S&W, going through what was probably the nadir of its existence (so far), managed to remain virtually untouched in most stores local to my area.

^ While this is definitely a concern, there exists a "double negative" problem, here. Those aftermarket HIDs (or LEDs) do not fit road-legal requirements, either, and for the vast majority of those who perform this modification to their vehicle, little, if any, considerations are paid to help with glare to oncoming traffic. Even for those who go the distance with full-optics retrofits, most still do not incorporate auto-leveling or other such OE-implemented glare reduction systems.

This is a huge issue inside urban centers, where sufficient street-lighting often exists so as to make roadways easily visible (and in some cases, street-lighting can completely wash-out vehicle headlamps, particularly those whose external lenses are heavily weathered or on older vehicles with sealed-beam incandescent lighting). Paired with persistently-lit "electroluminescent" gauge clusters on many modern vehicles, it's made it all too easy for distracted or simply ignorant drivers to get into the vehicle, start it, and to get underway without knowing at all that their vehicle is, for all intents and purposes, invisible to anyone who isn't approaching from the forward aspects. What's worse is that we also know from NHTSA and other similar foreign institutions that it is the lack of rear-visible lighting that causes collisions in foul weather which diminishes a driver's forward visibility (take a look at the rear fog lamp threads). Many modern vehicles now also come with an automatic headlamp function which is in-part designed to prevent this kind of problem...but alas, a lot of drivers do not realize this function (i.e. the "ignorance" part of the above equation). While I may not go every day/night without seeing someone who gets caught-out in just this scenario, I can safely say with all honesty that here in metro-NE-Ohio that I see this kind of problem at least once a week without fail, every week, every year.

^ Not all US auto-insurance gives that discount, even today - http://www.discountdrivers.com/insurance-daytime-headlights/ I think it's bad form for us to assume that of Rexmobbin (particularly as the post you quoted from, BDII, was authored in 2004 ) or any other members. Towards what was stated in that particular outlinked article, have there been any US-based, national-level studies since this one to show efficacy of DRLs (note that while the article points to 41 other studies it was aware of at the time of publication, it chose to cite the one specific study via the Minnesota DOT to corroborate its view that DRLs offer benefits, and therefore justifies those insurance discount)? https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811029 IIRC, the data we see from overseas - particularly Scandinavian countries - may be confounded by weather/darkness effects. IAFAIK, even today, there remains no official guidelines or recommendations, much less regulations, from the NHTSA regarding DRL specifications because of these inconclusive results and the continued confounding problems associated with DRL design and implementation (i.e. axial glare to oncoming vehicles, muting of the intensity of as well as confusion regarding turn-signals, etc.). I couldn't even find anything additional on Wiki - although the insight there regarding manufacturer attitudes regarding implementation here in North America was a most interesting read. I'd love for a bit of an update on this, if there's been newer stateside-specific data. ----- Full disclosure - both of our current Subarus ('16 WRX and '16 Outback) have DRLs, and no, I have not "deleted," deactivated, or otherwise modified them from-OE...and this actually spans back to our two immediate-previous Subarus as well ('13 FXT and '13 Tribeca). I saw no reason to do so as (1) current Subaru systems mute the same-side DRL when the vehicle's turn signal is engaged and (2), because whatever Subaru did in the intervening years since my '05 LGT seemed to have taken care of the bulb life-expectancy problem.

:lol: :lol: I just spewed water all over the screen! OMFG, if you invented that joke, I'm stealing it. ----- ^ Wait, all behind your couch? Well, I guess it really doesn't take up much space at all. :lol: I'm a first-generation, the son of immigrants - ones who do not own firearms, at that (my father's just not interested...maybe compulsory Service in my native Taiwan turned him off? - and my mother, despite having been a police officer in Taiwan and the daughter of a prominent general in their army, also was never really interested), I wanted to be able to leave my daughter and her children with something, should they be so inclined. I started stocking-up on ammo and mags after the last craze, as prices started to first normalize and then drop. Most of my .22LR are from the 6 to 5-cents per price-point, and most of my 5.56/.223 are from the thirty to twenty-seven cents days. I'm not exactly a high-volume shooter, but I do take classes a bit , and I do try to diligently self-practice, so my aim was to build up enough stock so that of the calibers that I actively shoot (9mm and .223/5.56), that I would at least have 10K of each (range-fodder) on-hand at all times - that it would become my "base," if you will. Somewhere along the way, I'd accumulated a bunch of .22LR, thinking that my daughter would go through a bunch of it. Looking back three years, she/we actually took it really slow when she first started (we single-loaded her CZ 452 the vast majority of the time) and then she suddenly moved up to centerfire (OK, probably not all that surprising, as she was getting fed-up with the lack of reliability of rimfire). That said, it still kinda shocks me just how fast we can plow through .22LR, now that we're shooting that caliber pretty much just to mess around. We're likely going to do Appleseed next year - not sure though, as the S&W 15-22 is still a no-go for those events: if so, I'll have to get her another semiauto.

.22 LR is way back. They're getting down to the four-cents per range, bulk online.

Hicks Law for Hicks!!!! OK, so that could have been any of a number of my friends.

Wanted to come back to this part: ^ This is key for a lot of techniques, and the press-check truly highlights it. As a technique, it is designed specifically so that - as Penguin and I have repeatedly pointed out - the shooter does not get the click of an empty chamber when they're expecting a bang as they break the trigger. This is why the press-check is taught to LE/military to be performed prior to heading into harm's way, and this is also why it is so stressed for both competition shooters as well as defensive shooters alike, beginning a course of fire and upon administrative loading. I came back to this because I realized that I had unwittingly put up a perfect example of this when I posted up my botched end-of-day bragging-rights contest at Costa's '12 class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAP2dfwnYSQ&feature=youtu.be The setup of the contest was a fastest-run-wins framework, with no misses allowed. Five per target at 7 yards, with a forced reload between the second and third targets (two ten-round mags). There's a tempo change in the BSA template as well, with anywhere shots on the Tac-Strike Quarter-Scales being good-to-go versus eyebox only on the VTAC paper. The reason why I press-checked at the make-ready was as I noted previously: I wanted to be sure I started off with an actual round in the chamber. This was among the first times that I'd ever run a "competition" stage (I'd only been shooting for about 18 months at that point), and definitely my first time performing in front of 30+ people. I knew that if I didn't do things as I'd always done, I stood a pretty good chance of messing up. And you can see that even though I tried to work things as I knew I should, I still fumbled that make-ready quite a bit. And that kind of pressure is very likely what caused me to somehow manage to interfere with the slide-lock/release - twice (my slide also didn't lock back there, at the end) during this run, resulting in the gun failing to lock-back on-empty. Note that although I totally forgot the setup of the forced reload (since the slide failed to lock back on empty) and thus dropped the striker on an empty chamber, I did not forget enough about the setup to have caused me to go into immediate-action at that point: i.e. I realized that I'd run dry, and instead of trying to remediate a non-existent stoppage with immediate-action, I knew instead I had to get a fresh mag in there. And, of-course, I'm doing so with the intent of immediately re-engaging: thus no need for a press-check. There's a place and a time to execute any technique just as there's places and times when that same technique may be completely the wrong thing to do.

Just adding in some of what I've been taught that is slightly different, and offers alternatives - not any more right or wrong, and again, it's not my invention, either. First and foremost, I'd like to add the step about verifying that your PPEs are in-place. For those in operational roles or otherwise do not carry loose ammo, this can be accomplished by "tac-loading" a fresh full mag or reload-with-retention a fresh full mag (with the latter, remembering to properly manage your ammo by getting it out of its quick-stow position; blending in with Penguin's step 6, below). To go along with this is to remember to test all switchgear in the fashion that you would use them, and that, furthermore, you'll also check each and every one of your backups, too. This may seem tedious or redundant, but particularly for those who wear a lot of gear to go into harms way or come out of wheeled transport to stage, there's always a chance that things can get knocked loose or wires snagged. For those who come from the school of not using the forward assist for this purpose, should one mess up that initial charging for whatever reason, simple forward finger pressure on the scallop of the BCG should allow you to bring the AR into battery. If it doesn't, don't dick around: it's time to just repeating that loading procedure again. Remember, this is an administrative task, it's time to make sure that your gun goes into the competition or fight working properly. While accomplishing these tasks should be rote (and the old hats need to make sure that the newbies come to this state of familiarity), the shooter must -ALWAYS- accomplish this task in a mindful manner, to make sure that it actually meets that last part of Penguin's criteria. To further this point, this kind of mechanical empathy is what Mike Pannone alludes to, in understanding what the gun should feel/sound like once that chamber is clear, when working stoppages in minimal visibility. As Jason Falla's outfit notes, it's about getting to that state of nirvana: "Subconscious Weapons Manipulation Cold and on Demand®" It might be their registered catchphrase, but that's the cold hard truth, 'cause the processing brain will have so much else to worry about , this part of it - along with marksmanship - at better be at that level of competence.

^ This. Ballistic masturbation is fun. And there's also something to be said about recoil control that really can only be effected by longer strings of fire and a higher round-count. But at the end of the day, if your instructor isn't holding you accountable for each and every shot you took (and yes, this can even be the 700 to 1K rds/day that some of the high-round-count classes demand), you've just finished a day at Tacticool Ninja-Bro Day Camp. For me, what I suggest to fellow students for vetting a school/instructor is to (1) look at AARs in reliable Forums such as P&S, M4Carbine.net, and Lightfighter.net, and/or (2) to talk to or read the same in your local shooting (be it for competition or concealed-carry) Forums (there's almost always a small core contingent in such communities of training-heavy individuals). Failing these efforts does not necessarily mean that the school/instructor is no-good: they simply may not be as known or popular. In this case, some directed questions of the school and/or instructor should be asked, first-hand, and the replies carefully considered. Additionally, even the least-known instructors should be able to put you in-touch with a few of his/her current or former students, and you should be able to get a feel for things by even just sitting down to a cup of coffee or sharing a range-date with these folk. Finally, look at who participates in the bigger yearly gatherings, and who they associate with. For example, here in NE-Ohio, there's two yearly gatherings that sees a lineup of some very serious individuals: Paul-E-Palooza ( http://paulepalooza.com/ roster available there ) and Friends of Pat Rogers ( http://www.friendsofpatrogers.com/ - Earnest Langdon, Jared Reston, Justin Dyal, Freddy Blish, Varg Freeborn, TNVC, Presscheck Consulting, Forge Tactical ). Although both boast impressive lineups of various industry figures, it should be pretty clear for anyone who has been in the sport/hobby a while which one - not necessary is "better" or "worse" - may be more or less suitable for any one particular individual, based on their personal mission-statement or the skill-sets that they are seeking. There's something to be said for the knowledge that the known SMEs will put out in their classes. But at the same time, those classes typically only really benefit those who are on either end of the bell-curve or those who are more vocal and self-directed about seeking help: the mass in the middle as well as those who are shy really do tend to get lost in the bulk. With sometimes 30 students without any AIs, it's easy to see how this can come to pass. Similarly, there's some things that you can only get from being in a shooting line of 30+. But the reverse is also just as valuable. Sometimes, having only a half-dozen to a dozen other students in the line - in a class with 6 or more AIs/RSOs, really can be of-benefit. And that doesn't even take into account the differences in tuition! And that's really all that it was - it's Japan, and it's a whole other culture. The shooting and airsoft communities' worship of figures like Costa-etc. would have produced the same kind of response, if McNamara simply took of his shirt (and replied to that solicitation for him to be the star in a "mature-male porno") or if Vickers....well, probably just breathed in the same room as them. I think it's funny that it produced that kind of reaction in our culture here, that's all. But that's probably because I'm Asian, and I used to play airsoft (and still own a sizeable airsoft collection).

I've been lucky to have had the opportunities that I did, when I first started. Come to think of it, that was about 1 and 1/2 years in. Costa - and Robert Vogel just a couple of months before - were really the first times that I had the opportunity to be under the big names. I don't necessarily think it's shilling. It's not as devious as that, and - at least with none of the guys that I've trained with so far - I really believe that these guys truly believe in the ability of the equipment that they are willing to represent to take a shooter's performance to the next level. But at the same time, I think that they also understand that what they allow the industry to do with them as celebrities does tread that fine line, and as-such, they're themselves unwilling to do anything more to advertise, other than perhaps to answer students' questions about those items and to give the students the ability to run those guns and those pieces of equipment (as long as they're not T&E models). The truth of the matter is that when those guns shoot well, they shoot amazingly well - like any other custom or semi-custom piece. I really think this is a case-by-case (like you said later on, it's the dangers of the blanket-statement, right? ). Ohio has become this midwestern-Mecca of vetted and proven trainers/schools. I've been really lucky to have had some rather high-speed folks as some of my local instructors from the very beginning, and what's more, even as I continue to grow as a shooter, I'm finding that this midwestern-Mecca effect over the course of the last 5 years really has made for some rather unexpected opportunities. Just a few weeks ago, I paid only $100 and got to spend 8 hours with John "Chappy" Chapman so that he could unfuck some of my awkwardness with the carbine. How come? Because the Alliance PD Training facility hosts their own training classes, which draws its instructional pool from a few of the Alliance PD guys - and Chappy's on that roster, being that he's one of their SRT guys. I think that while large "national name" level classes do have their own benefits, there's also a lot to be said for the regional and even local names - and that it's more important now than ever for the consumer to really shop around and properly vet their instructor, instructional cadre, or school. And I can't do Costagate, either. My butt ain't packaged that nice, and you don't want to see this much Chinese Braised Pork hit the floor, dynamically or otherwise.

^ Win. You said that so much better than I can.

I've taken classes with Costa. This was from the summer of 2012 here in NE-Ohio, my second year shooting (you can tell, because I've got shit recoil management ) : https://imgur.com/xnkeQ4u https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAP2dfwnYSQ&feature=youtu.be [ BTW, that press-check wasn't to look cool: it was to be sure that I didn't look the ass and click-instead-of-bang in front of the 30-odd students plus Costa and his AIs watching on, as we headed into that end-of-day contest. Similarly, I'm not tapping the back of that slide to be dynamically disruptive - I'm doing it because, as you can see from my pants and shoes, we'd done so much ground-work that day that everyone's gun had ingested a large amount of dirt and grit, and a lot of us (myself included, as I had elected to not lube or clean my gun at all during those three days, to see how and why it will malfunction when under such demands) started to see FTBs as the day wore on. To expand on the contest, it was 5 shots to each target, with a forced reload in between the 10th and 11th rounds out; the steel were TacStriker Quarters, and hits counted anywhere on the plate; paper was VTAC, and hits had to be within the eyebox only - any miss was an automatic DQ. ] And yes, he genuinely wants to help each and every one of his students shoot better, and yes, he definitely does say to all his students that they should just run what they'd brung (although if you show up to his classes like I did, with XDs, he'll ride your ass ): no sales pitches. I very much enjoyed my time with him and learned a lot from him, and I have no reservations in taking another class from him. I have been with enough big names in the industry now to know that yes, while these guys are there to make money, they also really want to make their students better shooters, and that to accomplish that goal, they look at helping the student build their TTPs almost to the exclusion of hardware (unless that hardware plain sucks, in which case many of them will tell you exactly why they dislike said hardware). But no matter what, these guys are tied into the machine that is in the industry, and what they take the time to show off in their hands or on their persons in social media, in DVDs, and even live in their training classes are there for very, very specific reasons - and that's to drive sales for those vendors who supply these famous faces with such items. I believe very strongly that to think otherwise is quite naive...and I really, really do think that the many instances and examples of these high-dollar guns (as they are sold to the average consumer, directly from their makers - and no, this isn't from second-hand range-talk, this is from actually seeing these very guns in the hands of average-Joe/Jane students as they bring them to classes) not working correctly is very telling. Understood, and I wholeheartedly agree. This I can agree with as well. I think too much is made of the possibility that those cuts will ingest too much crap and shut the gun down. It's really not the case at all. I'm sure that yes, it'll shut down sooner than that same gun, without, but even so, it's gonna take a heck of a lot - or that true "one-in-a-million" happenstance of just the right thing in just the right place (but then again, this can also happen with factory-stock guns, and this is something that I think that any of us who have shot enough have seen).

I'm not Penguin, but I'll step in to answer this portion of the debate as this concerns me as well. I actually spend most of my time around newer shooters. I still consider myself a newer shooter, with just short of six years' worth of involvement in the hobby/sport myself. And I hate to have to say it, too, but relying on the feel of that slide or bolt going home is a sure way to drop a round on an empty chamber at some point. The magazine seating against a closed slide or bolt will feel just the same whether that top round managed to get sent where it's supposed to go or not. And just because a magazine feels like it locked in correctly still leaves plenty of opportunity events to occur so that the top round doesn't make it into the chamber properly. Maybe the shooter's hand slips off the slide ever so slightly and thus fails to get it far back enough to chamber a round in his handgun. Maybe it's a defective magazine that incurred a stoppage in his AR. The chamber-check, in being a pre-engagement check of the gun's readiness to do battle will pick up on both of these not at all uncommon instances. And while more experienced shooters can typically rely on subjective "feel," the problem is that when under stress, things tend to go sideways, and that subjectivity can be very problematic. Why did the late Pat Rogers endorse that signage outside the shoot-house at Alliance? It's because plenty enough high-speed guys and gals have managed to Moose-Cock this most basic pre-action sequence. There is no need to press-check *_every_* time a new magazine is inserted. There's good times to press-check (i.e. administrative, when-possible/appropriate if "tactical" reloading/reloading-with-retention [particularly if that magazine was "light" or if the mag was outright seen by the shooter to be empty upon that reload (in this context, there is then virtually no way to be absolutely certain if there's still one in the chamber, or if maybe under stress the shooter manage to somehow mis-work the slide-lock/release], etc.), and there's just plain stupid and incorrect times to do it. And if this DQ's you during competition - as it will in some formats - then that, I submit, is a most improper time to execute the technique. To-wit, is it not logical to reason that we should not allow the rules of any one particular game, training circumstance, or facility rule to dictate *_ALL_* that we do? Muzzle up/down comes into play in a multi-story structure or where the structure has certain specific vulnerabilities (single-story shoothouse with catwalk for observers? muzzle up may be a safety violation; a boat? muzzle-down may not be the best muzzle-aversion techniques to utilize). Is the 180-break valid in a 360-degree shoot-house environment (be it live-fire or FoF), or is that - something that will also get a shooter DQ'ed or flagged for a safety violation on a flat-range - simply an artificiality imposed by circumstance? Am I going to yell at an LE that he's "breaking the 180 and that I'm going to DQ him," when he drops his handgun to SUL or football-carries his AR so that he can haul ass to (or away) from the sound of gunshots in a public venue? Circumstances, right? In the end, the press-check is a technique, and like every other proven and validated technique, there's both a reason for its existence as well as proper (and of-course improper) practices of it. The guys at the range who are constantly press-checking or doing other tactical douchery? Those television stars that have a press-check written into their role? That's just stupidity x 2. ------- And as for the dress-up Glocks - or any other guns for that matter. Cosmetics is just cosmetics, and what floats any one person's boat is what I consider to be just that. If it makes that person happy in the crotch when he/she pulls it out of the holster or the case, hey, more power to them. Functionally, with those slide cuts, I've actually gotta say that I've never seen such guns shit the bed even in very high-round-count classes where the guns get extremely, extremely dirty. And we're not talking about carbon build-up, here, like on a competition gun. We're talking about sand, mud, dirt, grass, etc. that comes from repeated ground-work drills and the like. Granted, *_every_* gun encounters stoppages under such conditions: but my point is that they don't seem to encounter stoppages any more or less frequently. Personally, at least in terms of state-side non-"wartime" use, I don't see a problem even with these things being duty or other hard-use pieces. Of-course, it's uber-unlikely that they'd ever be allowed as duty weapons (seeing the glacial pace at which even the now rather proven slide-mounted micro-RDS is being adopted), but I'm not going to look cross-eyed at someone showing up to a class with one. That said, in a zombie apocalypse scenario, I'd likely pick something else. And Sparkey, be careful in using celebrity examples when speaking of hardware. It's an industry. Those guys and gals do benefit from using that hardware, and while their personal examples may be stellar, that cannot always be said of the same hardware that's cranked out for us masses of the unwashed. That's not to say that I haven't seen Agency/Zev/whatevertheflavorofthemonthisforsoupedupblastershappenstobe guns absolutely rock it out in various classes, but I will say that I am also not the only one who have seen them, first hand, completely fail to perform in that same context. So with that, I go back to 1fast4by - Now I have to call that as being insincere. This kind of judgement call is made on virtually every gun forum - there's always going to be those who like such work and those who absolutely hate it just as much. I think that in having the hardware you obviously have, you know this to be true, and what's more, have also seen it in other Forums as well. I think that some members here may have been a bit unkind in how they voiced their opinions and you are - understandably - reacting in the same way, but really, can't we all just let it all be bygones, and at least recognize that we're all Subaru lovers who also love guns? And heck, this is a car fourm, after all: look at the hate we have for "Ricers" (whatever that term is supposed to describe, as I know plenty of Euro-trash drivers who regard anyone who drives a Far-East branded vehicle as a "ricer," no matter how many horses are under the hood or how fast it runs the quarter or how many of those same high-priced Euros they can lay waste to on the track). How can we be expected not to pass such judgements!

Please explain? How will the above procedures lead to an OOB-KB? It's specifically designed to insure that no-one dicks things up on the admin make-ready and that the weapons are properly prepared for work, period. This isn't a public range. It's the Alliance PD Training Facility.

Press checks: because shit happens. It's really as simple as that. There's a reason why this was erected outside the Alliance PD Shoot House facility and wears endorsement from the late Pat Rogers' EAG - http://i1249.photobucket.com/albums/hh515/EAG_TACTICAL/Brady%202012%20C2/217_zps3b98593d.jpg There's times that doing it is the smart thing to do. And yup, there's times that doing it is just the tactiturd thing to do.

It really depends on who's doing the work - just like it is with 1911/2011s. ---- As for the extra cocking serrations, I am among those who appreciate them for better traction when my hands are wet from sweat or rain (I've yet to be that bloodied during training/practice, but I suppose that anything is possible, with how klutzy I am ) - double that if I'm also cold or just extremely fatigued at the time. Ditto for single-handed manipulations. I just wish I had the dough to get that kind of cuts on my defensive handguns. I make-do with the poor-man's substitute: grip tape. Forward cocking serrations I like simply because that's how I do press-checks. It's not a must-have, but I'm willing to sacrifice some cleanliness-of-lines to gain that functionality in a working gun.

:lol: I love looking at the detail in the pix, to see what I can find. It's kinda like Where's Waldo. :lol:

And that's exactly why I've compromised in the way that I do. I can't sport the tactical man-purse look. The EDC-med looks just like another wallet on my hip. I originally thought about ankle carry, but that acquaintance I wrote of above with his accident: he almost severed left leg... so he'd have been SOL if that leg was torn off in the accident, and was some distance up the road, even if he'd had EDC-med and carried it there (what made it worse in his case was that he'd also almost completely severed his left arm; the only reason he survived was because an off-duty EMT just happened to come down the same road only seconds after he'd crashed). This made me want to keep things more centerline and ambi-accessible. What really gave me trouble was finding a way to carry (without going to the ankle) a TCCC/TECC-recommended TQ while still being low-profile. None of the commercial carriers (Lunar Concepts SwiftTQ, PHLster Flatpack, etc.) was able to offer me the degree of concealment I wanted.

Man, I wish you (and all the rest of you guys down there) the best. Be safe. When you can, please check back here and let us know how it's going. As a side-note, I've always been curious about "safety checks" at disaster shelters, with bag searches, etc. ---- Do you have EDC-med? I didn't start until, coincidentally, when an acquaintance told me his story of just how close he came to dying after a motorcycle accident and when I started taking my daughter to the range. Previous to that, I had a blow-out kit when shooting long-gun classes, but nothing true-EDC. I've been using an Adventure Medical Trauma Pack Pro for the last couple of years, swapping out the included QuickClot pad with Z-fold Combat Gauze and adding a bit of "boo-boo" for practicality (particularly with a small child - but even discounting Anna, I can't count the number of times when the boo-boo part of my kit saved the day). The reason I ask is because it's pretty much the size of my wallet, so I carry it on my strong side back pocket, opposite the wallet (both as a counterbalance and so that I'm not reaching for my ID with my weapon hand).